Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/08/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Wrong license, not legally exempt. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn; very improbable that copyright formalities have been followed. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
황도는무슨길이요. 14.51.34.27 00:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- According to Google Translate, this translates to "What is the path of the zodiac?" Kaldari (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy keep I don't quite understand what's going on. Is user at 14.51.34.27 seriously nominating deletion in order to ask a question?! To answer the question as Kaldari translated, the constellations of the zodiac lie approximately along the ecliptic, "the apparent path of the Sun throughout the course of a year." cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)- Speedy keep No coherent reason to delete the file has been offered. Indeed, no coherent statement of any kind has been made. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jc3s5h. I wonder if there's a better mechanism to propose deletion. The current way makes it easy for anyone to propose deletion, but ties up several editors to check the nomination. Perhaps allow only registered users to propose deletion, and take action against repeated false alarms? Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 17:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Achim (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Duplicate|File:Marie-Louise-de-Parme-PECHEUX.jpg}} StellarHalo (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Duplicate|File:Marie-Louise-de-Parme-PECHEUX.jpg}} StellarHalo (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Duplicate|File:Marie-Louise-de-Parme-PECHEUX.jpg}} StellarHalo (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, duplicate-processed. --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Darnimation (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - personal drawings
theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Support Nuke the whole lot as either OOS, copyvio or plain vandalism. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Aparently done by Fitindia. Uploader has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 16:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
All other uploads of this user were copyright violations. This uploads, with the same subjects and timeline are most likely copyright violations.
- Also with the same problem:
- File:Rozonda Thomas 1992.png
- File:Tionne Watkins 1992.png
- File:Chilli TLC 1992.png
Tm (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violations. --ƏXPLICIT 07:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
No more interested Lolizen (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
We do not use anymore. Not commercial Lolizen (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader's request. --Achim (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded by the portrayed person; consequently, not an own work. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- In fact, there are situations in which the portrayed person owns the copyright. I'd try COM:OTRS first. whym (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; please send OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I am the uploader of this image and would like to rewrite some of the metadata AGribble11 (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Non-trivial logos. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
This and other users files are nothing but adverts, out of scope BlinxTheKitty (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted by 1989 at 17:32, 12 August 2020 UTC: per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Jack208208 --Krdbot 02:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Wrong file uploaded Diego-omar-leiva (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the file is small and has no camera EXIF. How can you prove it is your "own work"? Please upload large files with EXIF (and of course of subjects within the Commons scope). Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; uploader's request, not used, and the copyvio concern as well. --Ahmadtalk 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files of User:Lawyermalyk
[edit]- File:TYT4atq5H3o.jpg
- File:PR1DLYxqvyk.jpg
- File:M70Okz4m9g.jpg
- File:YOpLdMmavic.jpg
- File:VnGK6VHavQo.jpg
- File:Малик Олександр Володимирович.jpg
User Lawyermalyk (lawyer Malyk), the head of a local lawyer firm in Ukraine, has uploaded the portraits of himself and few other local lawyers, none of them is notable. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
dont want this 12.28.145.154 05:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ahmadtalk 07:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work of the upoader. Looks like an ad. jdx Re: 08:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arash ramez (talk · contribs)
[edit]All appear to be photos of photos; OTRS permission needed.
- File:Captain Marine Parviz Ramezani.jpg
- File:One of the categories lacks a description page. Are you sure you typed the name correctly?.jpg
- File:ناخدا یکم تفنگدار دریائی پرویز رمضانی موسس تیپ یکم در بندرعباس 2.jpg
- File:ناخدا یکم تفنگدار دریائی پرویز رمضانی موسس تیپ یکم در بندرعباس 1.jpg
- File:ناخدا یکم تفنگدار دریائی پرویز رمضانی موسس تیپ یکم در بندرعباس.jpg
Ahmadtalk 09:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
no camera data, which suggests copyright violation (0.95 probability). No useful attribution, and illustrates nothing in particular, just a man with a car. Regardless of copyright status out of scope for Commons
Timtrent (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
A gallery of what appear to be family pictures, though I can't be certain. Out of scope for commons, which is not intended toehold your family pictures
- File:Lorne shields 1955 07.png
- File:Lorne shields 1955 08.png
- File:Lorne shields 1955 06.png
- File:Lorne shields 1955 05.png
- File:Lorne shields 1955 04.png
- File:Lorne shields 1955 02.png
- File:Lorne shields 1955 01.png
- File:Lorne shields 1955 03.png
Timtrent (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
These seem to be random vacation snaps. Out of scope for Commons. No camera data, which is odd
Timtrent (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rangroversis (talk · contribs)
[edit]uploaded by spam-only account, unlikely to be own work
Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
unused personal logo — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
unused personal logo; out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
unused personal logo; out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Icon-47.png
- File:Icon-46.png
- File:Icon-44.png
- File:Icon-42.png
- File:Icon-39.png
- File:Icon-40.png
- File:Icon-38.png
- File:Icon-35.png
- File:Icon-33.png
- File:Icon-32.png
- File:Icon-31.png
- File:Icon-30.png
- File:Icon-29.png
- File:Icon-28.png
- File:Icon-27.png
- File:Icon-26.png
- File:Icon-25.png
- File:Icon-22.png
- File:Icon-23.png
- File:Icon-24.png
- File:Icon-20.png
- File:ÉPICA icon.png
- File:Unisa icon.png
- File:RENTAMAS icon.png
- File:SOLESCO icon.png
- File:Century 21 icon.png
- File:CARRIZOSA HERMANOS icon.png
- File:Century 21 Evolution icon.png
- File:Icon-21.png
- File:Icon-19.png
- File:Icon-18.png
- File:Icon-17.png
- File:Icon-16.png
- File:Icon-15.png
- File:Icon-13.png
- File:Icon-11.png
- File:Icon-7.png
- File:ISA Inmobiliaria icon.png
- File:Century 21 logo.png
- File:C&C icon.png
- File:Constructora Inmobiliaria Laura Rivera icon.png
- File:Marval icon.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: Thanks for nominating and thus saving my time going through them individually and tagging files as copyvios where they meet COM:TO while adding a PD mark to the rest, which I had already started, as I was not bold enough to start a batch DR like that. Support deletion per nom, on that matter. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Noting mostly for myself that if all these files are deleted, en:File:Century 21 logo.png will need the tag removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope vanity selfie from a person and/or subject of no note / Acabashi (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Hajnalka Fuchs the artist died in 2000, see here. Copyrighted indoor artworks, not to be covered by COM:FOP Hungary.
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. Stained glass. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. Stained glass. Birth of Jesus. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. Stained glass. Jesus and the Three Kings. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. Stained glass. Jesus and the Virgin Immaculate. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. Stained glass. Jesus with flag. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. Stained glass. Jesus' resurrection. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. Stained glass. The Coronation of the Virgin Immaculate. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
- File:TovisFotoThalerTamas32.jpg
- File:TovisFotoThalerTamas33.jpg
- File:TovisFotoThalerTamas16.jpg
- File:TovisFotoThalerTamas13.jpg
- File:TovisFotoThalerTamas14.jpg
Regasterios (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 07:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-free in home country until 2032. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-free in home country until 2032. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Non-free in home country until 2032. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Lady Gaga
[edit]Outside project scope, unused fan art
Ytoyoda (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Small file w/o camera EXIF, dubious "own work". E4024 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Strakhov (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Watermarked Tekstman (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
copyrighted image from Britannica (logo at bottom left corner) Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by QueerEcofeminist as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G10 I'm not seeing blatant advertising. Maybe it was used on a promo WP page. Perhaps it is in Scope? Gbawden (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: useful file (Category:That instrument, Category:People playing that instrument,...). --Strakhov (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enigmaticpravin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyvio/DW of newspapers
Gbawden (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot; OTRS permission needed. Ahmadtalk 10:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Not within project's scope: uploading of seemingly personal photos of unnotable person. Photo is being used to promote an unknown Tiktoker on Simple Wikipedia and uploader may have strong COI with the subject. Infogapp1 (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete Quakewoody (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Italy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alioktemtr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Photo of a photo; OTRS permission needed. Ahmadtalk 14:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram and trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Gábor Szinte the artist died in 2012. Copyrighted indoor artworks, not to be covered by COM:FOP Hungary.
- File:Mátra Cultural Centre. Stained glass by Gábor Szinte. - Gyöngyös, Hungary.JPG
- File:Mátra Cultural Centre. Stained glass window by Gábor Szinte. - Gyöngyös, Hungary.JPG
- File:Mátra Cultural Centre. Stained glass window made by Gábor Szinte. - Gyöngyös, Hungary.JPG
- File:Mátra Cultural Centre. Stained glass window. - Gyöngyös, Hungary.JPG
Regasterios (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juan S Ortega (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused images uploaded by spam-only account
Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Waldemar Lorentzon died in 1984. User seems to have uploaded more art that is not public domain yet Multichill (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The metadata credit Nathalie Guyon/FTV. The uploader does not appear to be the copyright owner.
Ytoyoda (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Apparent COM:NETCOPYVIOs - all from the same set, some (all?) elsewhere before up (e.g., File:Oui-4176.jpg is here) and uploader has significant copyvio history related to this subject
- File:Oui-4251.jpg
- File:Oui-4245.jpg
- File:Oui-4189.jpg
- File:Oui-4188.jpg
- File:Oui-4180.jpg
- File:Oui-4176.jpg
- File:Oui-4170.jpg
- File:Oui-4162.jpg
- File:Oui-4159.jpg
- File:Oui-4079.jpg
- File:Oui-4095.jpg
- File:Oui-4068.jpg
- File:Oui-4140.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 18:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
out of scope - photo of an unknown nameless woman Adelfrank (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - photo of an unknown nameless woman Adelfrank (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - photo of an unknown nameless woman Adelfrank (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - photo of an unknown nameless woman Adelfrank (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
out of scope - photo of an unknown nameless woman Adelfrank (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Probably out of scope BlinxTheKitty (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope - personal photo for non wikipedian --Alaa :)..! 12:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Pál Molnár C.
[edit]Molnár C. Pál died in 1981. These indoor artworks not to be covered by COM:FOP Hungary.
Regasterios (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Author requests deletion. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Author requests deletion. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KSR INDIAN SINGER (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope
Didym (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Foodkimochi (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work
Didym (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Images are property of Soulcafe Sbd Bhd and I have permission to use these images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodkimochi (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Image copied from: http://www.goldmedalist.co.kr/. Shows no indication of free use Nkon21 (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Copyright 2020 GOLDMEDALIST Co.,Ltd All rights reserved. --Strakhov (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Image copied from: http://www.goldmedalist.co.kr/, shows no indication of free use Nkon21 (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, Copyright 2020 GOLDMEDALIST Co.,Ltd All rights reserved. --Strakhov (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Provided sources show no indication of free use, copyright violation Nkon21 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Strakhov (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Je suis l'auteur et l'uploader et je souhaite supprimer ce fichier de plein droit Coolbens (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: early deletion request, courtesy deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Photo from www.asiastockimages.com, see watermark Solomon203 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (watermark was cropped away after upload, but still visible in first version). --Gestumblindi (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
i have the right to delete my page or personal photographs under privacy act of EU Prompri (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
just delete it Prompri (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Pure OoS nonsense, just delete it. --E4024 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Gestumblindi (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF. The only remaining upload of the uploader. Likely to be a copyright violation. Ahmadtalk 15:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No indication this is free in Russia. The work's author died in 1978. I don't have access to the original and can't say who the illustrator is, if different. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I moved it to Commons from en.wiki and looking at it again I can't tell for sure why I thought it was PD. --MGA73 (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of likely non-free content. MER-C 15:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The license provided is insufficient and probably incorrect. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Also nominated:
- File:Cotton exhibit at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum in Shreveport IMG 3353.JPG
- File:Sheep exhibit at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum in Shreveport IMG 3359.JPG
- File:Strawberry harvest at Louisiana State Exhibit Museum in Shreveport IMG 3360.JPG
Derivative work of non-free content. MER-C 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Originals appear to be paintings. Without information about the original works, we can't assume they are free. DMacks (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Not too simple for copyright Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work, erected in 1995. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work, erected in 1995. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Jean Besancenot died in 1992, copyright violation. 86.249.241.159 16:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC) PS : Je remercie le courageux anonyme qui a initié cette demande de suppression. Je suis très honoré de l’intérêt qu’il porte à mon travail.
--Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
,_1765.jpg){kind=link}
,_Later_Queen_of_Spain_MET_DP120724.jpg){kind=link}
_steams_in_a_close_formation_at_RIMPAC_2014.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![81 File:Мемориальный комплекс "Кумженская коса".JPG](#File:Мемориальный_комплекс_"Кумженская_коса".JPG){kind=link}
_&_family_LCCN2014695081.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![213 File:Петрові Федуну "Полтаві".jpg](#File:Петрові_Федуну_"Полтаві".jpg){kind=link}
,_1765.jpg){kind=link}
,_1765.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_1765.jpg){kind=link}
,_1765.jpg){kind=link}
,_Later_Queen_of_Spain_MET_DP120724.jpg){kind=link}
,_Later_Queen_of_Spain_MET_DP120724.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Later_Queen_of_Spain_MET_DP120724.jpg){kind=link}
,_Later_Queen_of_Spain_MET_DP120724.jpg){kind=link}
,_Later_Queen_of_Spain_MET_DP120724.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
_steams_in_a_close_formation_at_RIMPAC_2014.jpg){kind=link}
_steams_in_a_close_formation_at_RIMPAC_2014.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_steams_in_a_close_formation_at_RIMPAC_2014.jpg){kind=link}
_steams_in_a_close_formation_at_RIMPAC_2014.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per discussion. --Strakhov (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Rassistische, diskriminierende Menschendarstellung 77.0.93.14 19:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion; we document history, good and bad. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly such historically racist images are a concern. We would do well to have a project consensus on how to template these collections with notices to alert reusers that any reuse should be done with proper context. --Fæ (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
_%26_family_LCCN2014695081.jpg){kind=link}
_%26_family_LCCN2014695081.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is a duplicate of this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wied_4668751141_31471205f5_o.jpg Kj1595 (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
_&_family_LCCN2014695081.jpg){kind=link}
Keep and then redirect the other file. This one has a much higher resolution so it is preferrable to keep it instead of the other version. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Info Appear to be same source, same scan, so no value is lost as these are the same print. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)- Keep keep both, no redirects as these are different crops. Multichill (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per Multichill. --Strakhov (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
_&_family_LCCN2014695081.jpg){kind=link}
This file is a duplicate of this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_and_Princess_of_Albania_5051566232_1c17f6c1bc_o.jpg Kj1595 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep no it's not. Completely different colors and look at the writing in the top left corner. Multichill (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: not duplicates. --Strakhov (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ernő Jeges
[edit]Ernő Jeges died in 1956. These indoor artworks not to be covered by COM:FOP Hungary (erected in 1950).
- File:TovisFotoThalerTamas15.jpg
- File:TovisFotoThalerTamas7.jpg
- File:Church of St. John of Capistrano. St. Elizabeth. - 1A, Tövis utca, Budapest District II.JPG
Regasterios (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 11:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Factual incorrect & low-quality chemical model. The nitrogen atom of the amino group does have three hydrogen atoms and should hence be ionic, however the model then would not depict monoethanolamine. Have File:Ethanolamine 3D ball.png and File:Ethanolamine 3D spacefill.png as high-quality alternatives. Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 19:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete or crop off the "NH3C2H4OH" part. That text is factually flawed (if three H, N would be + charge). Do we have a spacefill of the ammonium derivative of ethanolamine, and is there a reasonable COM:EDUSE even if no current usage? DMacks (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I think I could create a high-quality spacefill model of the corresponding ammonium derivative. Should it contain also the anion (e.g. Cl–) or just the ammonium molecule? Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 07:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- If there is a crystal structure of a certain anionic combination, then that would be useful because it would have a verifiably correct conformation. But otherwise, "just the ammonium" would be a more useful one, so editors could pair it with any other anion from various separate files. DMacks (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I thought about something like this model. What do you think? Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Looks fine, Thanks. DMacks (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I have now uploaded File:Monoethanolamine-cation-3D-vdW.png as direct replacement for this file, hence this file could be deleted! Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 07:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Looks fine, Thanks. DMacks (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- I thought about something like this model. What do you think? Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- If there is a crystal structure of a certain anionic combination, then that would be useful because it would have a verifiably correct conformation. But otherwise, "just the ammonium" would be a more useful one, so editors could pair it with any other anion from various separate files. DMacks (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- @DMacks: I think I could create a high-quality spacefill model of the corresponding ammonium derivative. Should it contain also the anion (e.g. Cl–) or just the ammonium molecule? Chem Sim 2001 (disc) 07:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Leyo 22:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
CC licence claim doubtful - no indication of who the photographer is, uploader has only one contribution to Commons (uploading this), doubtful to be own work, no proof that copyright holder (washingtoninstitute.org?) released it under the claimed licence.-- PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
CC licence claim doubtful - no indication of who the photographer is, uploader has only four contributions to Commons, uploader seems to be sockpuppet of ADSYD15 based on edits, no evidence that uploader is actually the copyright holder PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
CC licence claim doubtful - no indication of who the photographer is, uploader has only four contributions to Commons, uploader seems to be sockpuppet of ADSYD15 based on edits, no evidence that uploader is actually the copyright holder PlanespotterA320 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
spam, out of scope 83.90.177.205 14:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Uploaded by a spam only account, with the intention of advertising. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --CptViraj (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
pointless duplicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2020_Pacific_hurricane_season_summary_map.png FleurDeOdile (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Agree Matlin (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D works in the United States A1Cafel (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Agree Matlin (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Doubtful this was painted 70 years ago, let alone author died by then. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Signature of unknown individual Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Previously published photo, requires OTRS permission statement: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2016/5/video-watch-youtube-trick-shot-stars-dude-perfect-smash-11-new-world-records Ytoyoda (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be from https://www.theamericanreporter dot com/anastasia-belotskayas-60s-look-breaks-current-modeling-industry-trends/ Ytoyoda (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a screenshot, not an original photo. The user’s other contribution suggest this is not their own work. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Outdoor sculptures in Tokyo
[edit]Obviously modern artistic works, perhaps the copyright is still valid. No FoP in Japan for artistic works.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Previously published photo (see Google Image search). Needs OTRS verification. Ytoyoda (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Instagram image without proper copyright release ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete, possible copyright violation and PR (uploaded for PR page on ru.wiki). Кронас (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a stock image widespread across social media since 2011. https://www.f1online.de/en/image-details/4671096.html Richard Avery (talk) 11:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
from Facebook. Also other uploadings from this user should be checked Estopedist1 (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
personal image, out of scope Gyrostat (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Visiblement une copie d'écran. Copyvio Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio, le verseur n’est pas l’auteur de la photo. Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE - Instagram Screenshot/Personal Pic - unused Arian (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the sculptor. This is an indoor artwork in Hungary, erected in 1999, not to be covered by COM:FOP Hungary. The sculptor was E. Lakatos Aranka, see here. The permission of the photographer is not sufficient. Regasterios (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
No permission from the sculptor. This is an indoor artwork in Hungary, erected in 1999, not to be covered by COM:FOP Hungary. The sculptor was István Szabó jr. (1927–2017), see here. The permission of the photographer is not sufficient. Regasterios (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Source/Photography will not be giving permission to use photo under Creative Commons License. Chinatown Memories (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs permission from Keith Lock from The Keith Lock Collection. --Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Useless blurry photo. Solomon203 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Useless blurry photo. Solomon203 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Forrestbevington
[edit]
Fairly professional-looking photos, unlikely to be the own work of the uploader, Forrestbevington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). All of the user's other uploads have been copyvios. --M.nelson (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP. --Gbawden (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
unused personal QR code; out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Unused PNG file superseded by SVG file A1Cafel (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
unused personal QR code; out of scope — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
my personal photography Prompri (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Tulsi Bhagat. --Gbawden (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
my personal photography Prompri (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by George Chernilevsky. --Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, my name is Lance Freud, I represent the person in this image and she would like to have this image deleted and replaced for personal reasons. Thanks a lot and stay safe! MoraisT (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lance, I deleted the image on all language versions on Wikipedia with the exception of the Russian language version and the version in Malagasy language. The reason for that is that in these two language versions the image was not deleted, even though I deleted the code for the jpg.-File. I don't know why. I hope, I was able to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Katzenberger (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I am just wondering why that image is still the first which shows once we google the Teresa Villaverde name. Is it because it takes time to desapear from the web or because of those contries you weren't able to delete?
Maybe that is the case, because I did not yet delete the photo in Wikimedia. I could do that as well, if this is possible. However I am not sure, whether this is the case.
Thanks again for your help, L. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoraisT (talk • contribs) 14:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- In use. "I don't like it" is no valid reason for deletion. However, I'm wondering why the EXIF data reads "photographer Markus Meel" and Paul Katzenberger tagged it {{Own}}. --Achim (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Achim55,
the EXIF data indicates "photographer Markus Meel", because I edited the photo in "Photoshop" and once you do that, Photoshop automatically inserts "Markus Meel" as photographer. You can delete that in Photoshop, but I simply forgot to do so. I am the one, who took the photo at the Berlinale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Katzenberger (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi Achim55, Sorry to bother you with this matter again, but do you think you could help us remove this photo? Would it help if the person in the image ask herself? Is there a way to prove that the person is the real person (in this case Teresa Villvaerde)? I represent her, but maybe that is not enough. I am really new is Wiki world. Could you give us a help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoraisT (talk • contribs) 10:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry MoraisT, but that doesn't work. Teresa Villaverde has been photographed during a public event where she had to expect being photographed, the quality of the photo is OK, and it is in use on some Wikimedia projects. So I see no valid reason according to our deletion policy for to delete it. --Achim (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Author Markus Meel 191.126.151.148 00:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; please read previous DR. --Gbawden (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, not likely to be own work. The uploader has also claimed "own work" for the rest of their uploads, which seems improbable. Ahmadtalk 15:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Small, no EXIF, is apparently available elsewhere (on LinkedIn; found by using Google search by image); unlikely to be own work. Ahmadtalk 15:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Small, low quality, no EXIF data. Possible copyright violation; OTRS permission needed. Ahmadtalk 09:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
i have the right to delete my page or personal photographs under privacy act of EU Prompri (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: redirects to file deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/File:A boy scout in math olympiad.jpg. --Minoraxtalk 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. It's also a derivative work and, since the uploader is apparently the person depicted in the photo, OTRS permission from the author is required. Ahmadtalk 14:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete - Out of scope, images were most likely uploaded as part of their ongoing spam campaign on enwiki. @Ahmad252: I have also listed their other uploads for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/LilZavier images. Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Fitindia. --Minoraxtalk 15:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright) Timtrent (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mir Afaque Alli.jpg Timtrent (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. With the added infobox and text it looks like this person is attempting to set up an inappropriate personal vanity web page. Is a user block also appropriate? Acabashi (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Acabashi I think it's just a kid with an enthusiasm, but a short acting block would make the point. Timtrent (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 15:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism on fr.wp, no source, unlikely to be own work Gyrostat (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; as unlikely own work[1]. --Túrelio (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
reason: G7 uploader request(updated) Prompri (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Question Where did mouth image come from? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Template:Answer @Gone Postal: anime_eye.svg used under CC, i actually copy-pasted "my personal photography" part from other photography images by mistake when copying wikicodes. actually it should be "i redraw the mouth part using paint software, also borrowing "anime_eye.svg or something" under CC"
this deletion process should have been taken 7 days but its taking longer. i apologize for the mistake. i also like collecting pretty old stamps. Prompri (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. I think I will vote
- As I have understood this, the uploader was under the age of majority at the time they have released this file under a free licence. If my understanding is correct, in that case I want to change my vote to Delete. We need to start working on a policy to deal with this, it's the second case like that. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- As I have understood this, the uploader was under the age of majority at the time they have released this file under a free licence. If my understanding is correct, in that case I want to change my vote to
Strong oppose pls dont directly say things as having "less intelligence", i dont think thats civil at all. In fact, keeping user's works when they dont want is immature, pretty annoying. Feels like that differs to personwise, regarding when different person uses one's own profile pic. I am not comfortable with it. That keep is an invalid claim, its just administration wielding their administration features, bending wiki polices to their wills. Keeping this hanging is causing trouble, nevertheless doing this community anything good other than harms for me. Im assuming good faith, pls dont block me for opposing. Also I will be asking in r/Privacy, in my knowledge no other sites doesn't disallow user deleteion request of their own uploads, this absurd, wiki has clear policies for deletion due to privacy, although i had unnecessary trouble. I would like to know again, how do I properly request for deletion of this file? Prompri (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- To request a deletion of a file you start a deletion request. You have done so, we are here. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your answer. I think I will vote
- Keep Per Commons:Deletion policy we delete images if there is a copyright violation or if the image is out of scope. In rare occasions we might delete images per author's request, but there has to be some compelling reason. I do not see any reason do delete this image. --Jarekt (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose @Gone Postal: @Jarekt: G7: uploader request please consider reading G7, its applicable here. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_reasons I created the mouth portion, i hold the rights of it and thus want it to be removed. I dont want this in internet, it conflicts with GDPR.- @Prompri:
You offered an irrevocable license over four years ago. It doesn't seem to me that you can decide on whim to say "I didn't mean it." I would have no objection, though, if you chose an explicit attribution unrelated to your own name, e.g. change "{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}" to "{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|author="Happy Guy"}}" or some such. Jmabel ! talk 03:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC) That said, this is only a weak keep: I can't see much value in the image. The main reason I'd want to keep is that in four years, someone could easily have reused this elsewhere, and we ought to preserve evidence that they have a legitimate license to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)- Given the below, delete and block uploader indefinitely. Allow him access to his user talk page if he changes his mind, but link this discussion from that talk page so that he can't just come back pretending none of this happened. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- thanks, I also agree the
claim of keep is weak. as it doesnt have any importance, i created file by mistake and also INACTIVE user in thai wiki is using it as user profile, without author confirmation, (may could be portraying as me, who would take responsibility if the thai guy damages or causes harm, people might think its a sock puppet of mine.)Prompri (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Template:Strongly delete I see this platform is self-serving after all, the staffs themselves take donation moneys, normal users suffers making contributions and staffs calling them "less intelligent" uncivilly. Banning for opposition would be unfair, on that case, I will spreading that in larger reddit communities. I saw using terms like "weak keep" which is no different than "keep" I dont see how a image created by me, borrowing the anime_eye.svg cant be deleted. Three policies and one regulation here in effect G7:uploader request, Privacy policy, Deletion polices and GDPR of EU the most important one. Probably I should be mailing associated privacy organisations. Prompri (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No privacy issue here, and also you cannot claim privacy violation, when you are the only one who has ever shared any information on here. I see no other user attempting to place a photo of you or scans of your documents. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- im writing mail to appropriate authority in my region, right now. asking wikipedia wont help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 08:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- You do realise that you are not on Wikipedia right now, right? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Keep. The image has been released under an irrevocable licence and may have been used elsewhere, either online or in an offline document. Deletion of the file may open existing users up to the prospect of litigation. As a side note, the uploader has referred to "staffs," I would like to point out that all users here are volunteers. Also, I can't see any information here that is protected under GDPR; the username provides a pseudonymised key to identity but relies on the user making further public declarations elsewhere about who they are. If the user chooses to reveal their identity elsewhere, that is of no concern to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)- "CC licenses do not prohibit licensors from ceasing distribution of their works at any time." @Jmabel: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prompri (talk • contribs) 09:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. Yes, you have the right to stop distributing your work. However, you distributed your work several years ago and granted Commons a right to use it. You have already applied the "cease distribution" part by not distributing it any further and the second element of your licence being irrevocable means that Commons can continue to distribute it under the original licence conditions. The Creative Commons licence does allow you to alter the method of attribution/credit if you are no longer happy for it to be linked to your username. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- i was underage, and dont remember consenting to CC.10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Prompri (talk)
- That is an interesting point. A copyright licence works on a similar principle to contract law as you have created a contract to relinquish some of your rights to the file. If you were a legal minor in your country at the time of upload, you may not have had the legal ability to enter into a contract. As an analogy, it would be like a child music star signing up to release their music under a record label without the permission of their parents/legal guardian. If you didn't have the legal authority to licence your work then I would change my !vote to delete. The question then comes as to how to provide evidence of your age without causing the privacy breach you are concerned about. Are there any suggestions from more experienced users on how this could be done? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have struck my Keep !vote pending clarification of the age issue. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Based on the uploader now claiming this is a copyright violation coupled with the age issue. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have struck my Keep !vote pending clarification of the age issue. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is an interesting point. A copyright licence works on a similar principle to contract law as you have created a contract to relinquish some of your rights to the file. If you were a legal minor in your country at the time of upload, you may not have had the legal ability to enter into a contract. As an analogy, it would be like a child music star signing up to release their music under a record label without the permission of their parents/legal guardian. If you didn't have the legal authority to licence your work then I would change my !vote to delete. The question then comes as to how to provide evidence of your age without causing the privacy breach you are concerned about. Are there any suggestions from more experienced users on how this could be done? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- i was underage, and dont remember consenting to CC.10:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Prompri (talk)
- Please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~. Yes, you have the right to stop distributing your work. However, you distributed your work several years ago and granted Commons a right to use it. You have already applied the "cease distribution" part by not distributing it any further and the second element of your licence being irrevocable means that Commons can continue to distribute it under the original licence conditions. The Creative Commons licence does allow you to alter the method of attribution/credit if you are no longer happy for it to be linked to your username. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thanks, the deprived image was consented to CC, but not my friends own mouth works, i quiet dint know how things work, I had to figure things on my own and discord. After discussing in official discord of wikipedia they said Copyvio works in this case. But regardless, my friend hold the copyright of the mouth.Prompri (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC) now, i clearly remember now , my friend had made the mouth when were in the same school, i rejoined it with the deprived eyes, without asking him for his consent, give me time dont finally decide on keep, i need to find his number in my diary in our store,and ask him if he can copyright strike it. again, i apologize for my behaviour.Prompri (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Vk}}. The file was first uploaded 05:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC), so prima facie it doesn't qualify for COM:CSD#G7, but E4024 should have started this DR rather than reverting with threat in this edit. Also, the file is in use on th:ผู้ใช้:Ritpipat Phohiran. In addition, the uploader / nominator appears not to understand that the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license is irrevocable. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC) UPDATE: Weak delete, not as a courtesy, but due to a claim of copyright infringement in the ticket. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Please take a look at the date of that diff and the date of opening of this DR. The uploader has been trying to initiate several speedy deletions while this DR is in progress. While I try to avoid holding conversations through edit summaries, a warning about potential blocks for repeatedly reinstating speedy deletion tags (after being told the DR is sufficient) is a valid move. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @From Hill To Shore and E4024: Sorry, you're right, this DR was already running. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Please take a look at the date of that diff and the date of opening of this DR. The uploader has been trying to initiate several speedy deletions while this DR is in progress. While I try to avoid holding conversations through edit summaries, a warning about potential blocks for repeatedly reinstating speedy deletion tags (after being told the DR is sufficient) is a valid move. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
someone in your official discord advice me to copyvio it.Prompri (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC) @Jeff G.: atleast let me change the description.Prompri (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Comment Questions about the scope or usability of the image notwithstanding, Creative Commons licenses do allow the original author to request the removal of attribution information. Should the image be kept, an administrator can remove the original uploader's name from the page and wipe the edit and upload history. As the for the age issue mentioned above, Creative Commons has some information on that, as well. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Clpo13: thanks,man you're life saver. @Jeff G.: admin, pls delete completely nuke my account, delete the another block thread(its borderline doxx), i dont care what happens after. if possible delete the revision history of my userpage and talkpage, that reveals a lot about me. again, i do regret over my immature behavior with gone postal UPDATE: i need time to contact the owner of mouth piece. Prompri (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Prompri: I'm not an Admin here yet. So are you lying now or were you lying at initial upload when you claimed it was your own work? — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff, I don't think there is a need to escalate the matter with claims of lying. My understanding of the situation is that this is a derivative work. The eyes are from File:Anime eye.svg and were linked on the file page before Prompri's version changes and other edits from today. The mouth they have claimed as their own work and I see no reason to doubt that. Prompri has asked for the file to be deleted, which has prompted this discussion. From this discussion, two potential options have arisen;
- Pompri provides evidence that the file was uploaded when they were a legal minor in their country and also identifies their country of origin so that we can confirm that adults can disclaim agreements they made while a minor (see Creative Commons FAQ for more information).
- Prompri asks for their attribution/credit description be changed on the file so that it can no longer be associated with them. This seems to be the option they have selected as they have asked for their account to be deleted. The file will remain but the personal information they say they included in their userspace history could be purged. I'll make sure this is noted on the admin board so someone can advise Prompri on any steps they need to follow. I expect that some of the user account can be deleted to hide information from normal users but I am not sure how much can be wiped completely.
- As a further element of confusion, Prompri appears to have been advised by some unknown person on Discord that they should claim the file is a copyright violation. Without sight of that discussion and how the issue was described, I don't know whether the person who advised them is confused by copyright law or if they are just trying to make mischief. I think it is safe to rule out copyright violation here as the eyes are a derivative work from a freely licensed file and the mouth is claimed as their own work.
- I am seeing this as a rather confused user who has received bad advice from other users and not someone intent on deception. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ok. I think your claim of lying is in reference to a comment that Prompri has inserted further up the page.[2] It may have been useful to add a link to that diff as your comment has no context for your question about lying. Certainly the change in story adds another layer of complexity to this sorry state of affairs. @Prompri: , I would advise you to be careful with what you are claiming here. You need to be honest with us and explain clearly the sequence of events. The first time you have mentioned this third party has come after an unknown person on Discord has advised you to try and claim this as a copyright violation. That seems like a rather convenient sequence of events and introduces a layer of doubt in my mind about the credibility of your statement. If it is a genuine claim then the sequence of events is unfortunate. If it is not genuine and you have been advised that this is an easier method to ensure deletion, you may end up making this into a bigger mess than we started with. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff, I don't think there is a need to escalate the matter with claims of lying. My understanding of the situation is that this is a derivative work. The eyes are from File:Anime eye.svg and were linked on the file page before Prompri's version changes and other edits from today. The mouth they have claimed as their own work and I see no reason to doubt that. Prompri has asked for the file to be deleted, which has prompted this discussion. From this discussion, two potential options have arisen;
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FFile%3AAnime_eyes_%26_red_happy_mouth_with_teeth.jpg&type=revision&diff=444623390&oldid=444615233){kind=link}
primarily proceed with nuking my account, i made ythese images from borrowing original art club elements of huge piles, i cant differentiate I made what and internet stock images. as i dont have enough recollection of the memory of that time because of my mental issues, cant tell much. my club co-member might tell, i will knock them later. how you want to verify my age let me know, I wont be providing my personal documents online to unknown people to be safe after seeing these GDPR issues. i dont like the hasslings anymore, got fed up with it, honestly. nuke my account,pls or whatever thats best for me, the language barrier, is making it difficult to communicate or understand, my head is in serious pain understanding the translations. i dont care.Prompri (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC) yea I inserted that because I recalled using art club images, we do insane amount of practises there, with different file to learn photoshops and illustrations. @From Hill To Shore: i dont see how lying would benefit me, its 4 years old incident, I might not have clear rememberance. i will ask friends dug it up, if i can find their contacts. i dont care if its not believable, im okay with speaking the truth even it appears to be false to others. Prompri (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
okay, again, i dont wish to arouse any further misconfusions, the language barrier is making it difficult. my friends in club may figure out about the files. as we used to work together and such, it wasnt wrong for me to say i hold the rights on their behalf, i dont if it was really me who made the mouth or other members there. its really the truth. i think im mentally hurting myself more,through putting myself into negativity of this place. whatever nuke my acc, im leaving for good.Prompri (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC) @From Hill To Shore: sorry to pinging you again, i dont know whom to contact. the mouth was created by different member from our artclub, he wishes it to be taken down immediately. i used the it thinking i made it. he has the file watermarked in white, when i reused his image i converted into jpg as a result the watermark dissolved into the white background.
pls let me know the procedure, how he should file his complain for copyvio officially. Prompri (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have asked for advice at the Help Desk.[3] However, given the way the discussion is going at the moment, the file may be deleted without needing to initiate a copyright claim. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Vk}}Oppose courtesy deletion while the file is used (Someone may suggest Thai Wikipedia community to use another image, however). Also, I see no clear evidence for copyright violation here as the attribution to the eye has already been fixed. No evidence provided that the mouth was made by somebody else not that the user was underage in their country and so unable to grant a legally valid license (such evidence could be provided non-publicly to OTRS). Ankry (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC) I changed my mind after reading details provided recently in the OTRS ticket mentioned below.- Delete as copyvio basing on ticket:2020083110004108. Ankry (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment We've also received email at OTRS, see ticket:2020083110004108. — JGHowes talk 17:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: consensus to delete as copyvio based on takedown email OTRS ticket:2020083110004108. JGHowes talk 13:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Japan: 1995 monument.
- File:Buda de Ushiku-sctambled.jpg
- File:Daibutsu.jpg
- File:Ushiku Daibutsu 2006.jpg
- File:Ushiku-daibutsu-reasambledpicture.jpg
- File:UshikuBuddha.jpg
- File:Ushikudaibutsu-ibaraki-japan-daytime-fullimage.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 09:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
★ Halt! Hold Your horses! Ushiku Daibutsu is a building. There are elevators and everything inside. According to the linked COMFOP article, buildings are OK. The nominator might not have known this? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- The linked article says that "Some buildings like the Tower of the Sun can be regarded as artistic works" and thus the designer can claim copyright infringement. This building in the shape of the Buddha is certainly comparable to it in the sense that it qualifies as a statue and thus as an artistic work. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- Eleassar, as the nominator isn't it on you to provide proof that the building was claimed as copyright? To me a Buddha is like a cross, it isn't thought to be copyrighted. So I'd be quite surprised if you found any claim of copyright on this Buddha. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Statues of Buddha (as well as corpses of Jesus on a cross) are generally regarded as artistic works. Per COM:EVID, the burden of proof that an exception in this regard should be made for this statue is on the uploader. --Eleassar (t/p) 07:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It is sculpture, rather than architecture, despite its size and the fact that people can go into it. The Statue of Liberty is sculpture.... As for the question of whether it cannot have a copyright, like a cross -- a plain cross would probably not pass the ToO anywhere, any Buddha certainly would. The burden of proof that an image (and any underlying work) is free of copyright or freely licensed always lies with those who would keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]- File:Ushiku Daibutsu --- Censer.JPG
- File:Ushiku Daibutsu 2.jpg
- File:Ushiku Daibutsu in Ushiku City.JPG
- File:Ushiku Daibutsu.jpg
- File:Ushiku-daibutu-hk.jpg
Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]
No FOP in Japan. --Ralth Galth (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, this is a modern statue in Japan, a country where there is no Freedom of Panorama exemption for sculpture. --Storkk (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]- File:Kunocho, Ushiku, Ibaraki Prefecture 300-1288, Japan - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Kunocho, Ushiku, Ibaraki Prefecture 300-1288, Japan - panoramio (3).jpg
- File:牛久大仏の足元の秋(Autumn at the foot of Ushiku Daibutsu) 25 Oct, 2015 - panoramio.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_25_Oct,_2015_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Qurren (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]Qurren (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]No FoP in Japan for artistic works.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]This Daibutsu (large statue of Buddha) ,named "ja:牛久大仏 (en:Ushiku Daibutsu)", was erected in 1992 [4] [5]. No FoP in Japan for statues.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu
[edit]
Qurren (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 11:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Minamoto no Mitsunaka
[edit]COM:DW of a copyrighted statue. This statue in Kawanishi City, named "源満仲公像" (Statue of Minamoto no Mitsunaka), was erected in 平成元年 (= 1989) [6]. No FoP in Japan for statues.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --MGA73 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Per information from Ticket:2020080310005946, the portrait is taken by a now defunct studio, and its staff's contact remains unknown. Therefore, per COM:PCP, the file should be deleted for a lack of source and permission. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 04:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The subject is the logo of the museum; OTRS permission needed. See also COM:TOO Iran. Ahmadtalk 15:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 22:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Very small, historical, can be found elsewhere on the web by using Google search by image; unlikely to be own work. Ahmadtalk 15:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hanooz 19:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jorenji (Itabashi, Tokyo)
[edit]This Daibutsu (large statues of Buddha) ,named "東京大仏 (Tokyo Daibutsu)", was erected in 1977 [7]. No FoP in Japan for statues.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Addition,
--Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Echizen Daibutsu
[edit]This Daibutsu (large statue of Buddha) ,named "ja:越前大仏 (Echizen Daibutsu)", was erected in 1987 [8] [9]. No FoP in Japan for statues.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Higashiosaka, Osaka
[edit]This Daibutsu (large statue of Buddha) ,named "石切大仏 (Ishikiri Daibutsu)", was erected in 1980 [10] [11]. No FoP in Japan for statues.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Takaosan Yakuouin
[edit]These en:Tengu statues in ja:高尾山 (en:Mount Takao), named "大小天狗像" or "大天狗・小天狗像", was erected in 平成17年 (= 2005) [12]. No FoP in Japan for statues.
- File:Mount Takao-2010.JPG
- File:Tengu statues on Mt. Takao 176135163 b06ffb2f46 o.jpg
- File:Tengu-1.jpg
- File:Two legends at Mt. Takao - panoramio.jpg
Yuraily Lic (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
derivative work of the trophy Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Japan Sport Olympic Square
[edit]The bronze statues of ja:ピエール・ド・クーベルタン (Pierre de Coubertin) and ja:嘉納治五郎 (Kanō Jigorō) in Japan Sport Olympic Square were erected in 2019 [13] [14]. No FoP in Japan for statues.
Yuraily Lic (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 03:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted ad. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted ad. "©" written in this ad. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
COM:DW of a copyrighted ad. No FoP in Japan for 2D works. Yuraily Lic (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yasu (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
20 KB "own work" without EXIF. I find not only this one but also some other files by the same uploader as dubious own works. E4024 (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: https://www.ha-makom.co.il/article/ofer-barkan-democracy צילום: מיכאל פייגין. -- Geagea (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; personal photo. In addition, the Persian caption says "done by my friend" («توسط دوستم انجام شده است»), and because the copyright holder is the person who took the photo, the photo needs OTRS permission (if it's not out of scope, that is). Ahmadtalk 09:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Update: I could find it here, so perhaps it's not out of scope. Nonetheless, the copyright problem should still be solved. Ahmadtalk 09:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Published elsewhere; needs to go through the OTRS procedure. --4nn1l2 (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. Created 1991. No Permission from the sculptor Ігор Стасюк. Микола Василечко (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. Created 1980. No Permission from the sculptor М. Дмитрів. Микола Василечко (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
unused logo of questionable notability, out of scope Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 04:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- This file is an original translation to Kiswahili.
ISAKOs has never had a Swahili translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by OWINGA (talk • contribs) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Move comment, closing. --Minoraxtalk 04:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Never existed Italian road sign Gigillo83 (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- How do you know this for sure? Fry1989 eh? 21:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I know it because in the old Italian Rule of the road those signs are not previded! You can see it in the Rule...--Gigillo83 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - as I recall it, the actual sign was a red circle with white inside, and there the outline of a red triangle standing on its tip with the black letters "ALT." The onus of proof is on the uploader. OAlexander (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- That would be File:Italian traffic signs - old - stop.svg, except the file has "STOP" in English. That doesn't mean this one didn't exist before it. Gigillo83, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know because I can't see the code. If you would link it for me, I'd be very thankful. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'd link to you the old code very happy, but I can't find on the web the code of the 1932...I have a book with it, but I can't find a web version...On all 2 books I have this sign doesn't exist...--Gigillo83 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- That would be File:Italian traffic signs - old - stop.svg, except the file has "STOP" in English. That doesn't mean this one didn't exist before it. Gigillo83, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know because I can't see the code. If you would link it for me, I'd be very thankful. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 08:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Fake pre-1959 Italian stop sign. The sign seems to have already been deleted from Commons Civitas13 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please note that none external source about the existence of that signs is provided (clamided as own work by uploader and 2017 as date of creation); in addition, for sure laws about road signage in Italy doesn't list this sign (see here the list of sign -unfortunately the online official drawings are not available-). --Civitas13 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. It was already deleted twice [15]. It had been uploaded the first time by an account that is now globally locked. It was reuploaded the second time by an account that is now blocked. And it was reuploaded this third time by an account that is now blocked. That doesn't look good. It may also be worth checking the other uploads of those accounts for other similar situations. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Speedy delete Directly uploaded without formal COM:UNDEL requests. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3AItalian+traffic+signs+-+stop+%28early%29.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Per Commons:scope - Personal work, not notable subject. Fma12 (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Possibly out of COM:SCOPE. In addition, the person depicted in the photo is apparently the uploader, but the photo is not likely to be a selfie, so OTRS permission from the author is required. Ahmadtalk 14:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of scope BlinxTheKitty (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The file is in use so that makes it in scope. The question is if the logo is copyrighted or not. I think it looks like {{PD-logo}} as it is mostly text and a simple background. --MGA73 (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Minoraxtalk 05:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This picture should be illegally uploaded. Otakon or any other party can't authorize to publish this under the creative common license. Meow-yoko (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, no actual coherent violating claim is being made here. Morgan695 (talk)
- Keep, It has been a longstanding image for eleven years now. At this point it's best to assume good faith with its upload. 웃OO 19:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
no authorization from the author. Example of utilisation before the upload [16] Tyseria (d) 08:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a cross-wiki upload - and the uploader claims to be the author. Has the uploading user been approached on French wikipedia? Newystats (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; PCP, other uploads by user were from the net as well. --Gbawden (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
no authorization from the author. Example of utilisation before the upload [17] Tyseria (d) 08:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is a cross-wiki upload - and the uploader claims to be the author. Has the uploading user been approached on French wikipedia? Newystats (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Author , Assemblée nationale per exif, not own work. --Gbawden (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Bad resolution and not used anywhere Soshial (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Patrick Kanner
[edit]The photo is from Philippe Houzé not from Pkanner2011 (Patrick Kanner himself?) which seems to be a disposable account. Probably the CMYK source PDF was filched from a printing house, COM:PCP! Why should give a professional photographer his photo under a fake name to Wikipedia? Here is an other photo from Philippe Houzé from the same event. Maybe a French speaking wikipedian can ask him due to this image.
Ras67 (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, the argument is not relevant. HaT59 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Why is "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file" irrelevant? I've expound my qualms above, can you explain your contrary opinion? --Ras67 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; Please send OTRS from Houze. --Gbawden (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
The source given for this image is absolutely unreliable, and I see no basis for the claim that the pictured person is actually Gnaeus Naevius, rather obscure Roman poet of the III century AD. On the contrary, here: https://dka.oszk.hu/html/kepoldal/index.phtml?id=003388 — we can see the same image labelled as a drawing of the bust of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. It looks more persuasive but we still don't know for sure who is this guy. Also we don't know who has created the drawing and, cosequently, whether it is copyrighted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Not too simple for copyright. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest, it wasn't me who decided it was simple. Someone else did. I originally uploaded the file on English Wikipedia under fair use. It's seen as simple for how the text is made up of letters and a generic smiley. PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It's too heavily stylized and the face is too creative to count as "too simple for copyright". Note examples at COM:TOO#USA which were deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of https://i-dailymail-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/ii/w820/s/i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/03/31/20/25829614-8173363-Ai_Fen_whose_text_prompted_whistle_blower_Li_Wenliang_to_sound_t-m-12_1585681727680.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Michel Foucault
[edit]Unlikely that a photograph taken in the 1970s and published at https://blog.oup.com/2019/06/michel-foucault-insane-criminal-sexual-deviants/ has a Creative Commons license.
- File:Conference de presse sur l affaire Jaubert. De gauche à droite, Pierre Laville, Michel Foucault,Claude Mauriac, Denis Langlois et Gilles Deleuze.jpg
- File:Michel Foucault.png
Ytoyoda (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Historical images, unlikely to be own works. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
From http://cornerstone.in/talent/Pooja-Bishnoi.html Ytoyoda (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Copyright. 𝕃𝐖 (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
This Daibutsu (large statue of Buddha) ,named "昭和大仏 (Showa Daibutsu)", was erected in 1984 [18]. No FoP in Japan for statues. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aomori Big Buddha (Showa Daibutsu) (昭和大仏) - panoramio.jpg. Yuraily Lic (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
_(%E6%98%AD%E5%92%8C%E5%A4%A7%E4%BB%8F)_-_panoramio.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Was this file deleted as a copyvio before? E4024 (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: smae subject but not same photo, I did not find catches with google for this one. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Instagram photo, per metadata Ytoyoda (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
not a simple logo, it meets the minimal creativity in Taiwan. Larryasou (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
illegal copy of the copyrighted image from [19] Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
copyrighted image from Britannica (logo at bottom left corner) Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Polarlys (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted banner A1Cafel (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Appears to be a still image or publicity photo from the Iranian television show "خاطرات مرد ناتمام". This would mean it is not the uploader's own work, and furthermore that it is probably copyrighted in Iran. Wikiacc (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. This file also available at WikiVoyage. Alexander Roumega (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Unoffficial colouring; please compare with official coat of arms as per File:Wappen Windhuk - Namibia.jpg Chtrede (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- In heraldry the exact colours of each emblazonment does not matter as long as the colours are recognisable with the tintures they represent. That in mind, the Windhoek arms have some variation in the colouring too, ex.1, ex.2. Regardless, the colouring can be changed if needed, this is not a reason to delete the file. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- But why would one divert from the official colouring? There is no need to do it. If colouring does not matter in heraldry [sic], I could use any colour. --Chtrede (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. Your second link does lead to a 404 error page. It is easy to get the exact coat of arms through the City admin (and this is what is shown in the file used for years in WP). --Chtrede (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to harmonise the colours of all the municipal arms just for the sake of overall clarity, the colours themselves are from the flag of Namibia, except argent for which I used light grey. I'd like to see other depictions of the "official arms" as the only versions seem to be here in the Wiki. The city's webpage doesn't seem to have any images of the arms either. The second link should be fixed now. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- to avoid deleting this very good svg i changed the colouring - in my opinion the colours were better before, but i am no expert in heraldry - i will now remove the delete request --Mrmw (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- As a heraldry nerd, I would like to add to this discussion. If one carefully reads what Fenn-O-maniC wrote, then one will notice that Fenn-O-maniC did in fact not write that colouring in and of itself does not matter at all, but rather that the exact colouring isn't considered critical to the heraldic science. What this means in practice is that while heraldry would not accept replacing colours (for example, blue to green, black to red, et cetera), heraldry does allow choosing colour shades. So it would be perfectly okay to choose a more bluish green, or a more yellowish green, or a lighter or darker green, et cetera. But, with that said, there may still be some preferences by heraldists regarding what constitutes good choices of colour shades. Most importantly, colour shades should not be chosen so freely that the colour becomes difficult to identify clearly. Others should not have to wonder if a particular shade is, for instance, meant to be black or green. Other than that, there are some other ideals when it comes to good choice of exact colour shades, like that heraldic colours should be bright, strong, clear, neutral, easily identifiable, and have good contrast. With all that in mind, I think that Fenn-O-maniC's original file had clearly superior colouration, from a heraldic point of view. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I checked the file discussion, and noticed a peculiar remark by Chtrede. It was a complaint about there being no yellow in the arms of Windhoek. This is to an extent true, while also signalling a lack of knowledge of heraldry. Yellow does not exist in heraldry, unlike gold. The thing is, choosing a yellow shade to represent gold is considered perfectly acceptable by great a many heraldists, and preferable by some, even. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is also no gold in the coat of arms of Windhoek, it is a brown and there is absolute no reason or need whatsoever to change that to yellow. But it is no sorted, as the correct colours were added. --Chtrede (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Judging by the hues the crown and motto scroll should be golden while the trunk of the aloe tree is indeed brown though. The original image was likely taken from a printed copy so the exact hues do not even reflect the intended tinctures as they all appear greyish. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Chtrede makes quite a big deal about the "official" colouration, and then proceeds to incorrectly claim that the arms contain no gold, despite the fact that the official blazon specifies that the mural crown should be gold. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you think so, please send a proof. I am living in Windhoek and see the emblem every single day - it has never been with any gold. --Chtrede (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- In that case I'm sure you could provide more resources to be used as the basis for the vector file, I'd love to see the arms being used. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Judging by the hues the crown and motto scroll should be golden while the trunk of the aloe tree is indeed brown though. The original image was likely taken from a printed copy so the exact hues do not even reflect the intended tinctures as they all appear greyish. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- There is also no gold in the coat of arms of Windhoek, it is a brown and there is absolute no reason or need whatsoever to change that to yellow. But it is no sorted, as the correct colours were added. --Chtrede (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I checked the file discussion, and noticed a peculiar remark by Chtrede. It was a complaint about there being no yellow in the arms of Windhoek. This is to an extent true, while also signalling a lack of knowledge of heraldry. Yellow does not exist in heraldry, unlike gold. The thing is, choosing a yellow shade to represent gold is considered perfectly acceptable by great a many heraldists, and preferable by some, even. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- As a heraldry nerd, I would like to add to this discussion. If one carefully reads what Fenn-O-maniC wrote, then one will notice that Fenn-O-maniC did in fact not write that colouring in and of itself does not matter at all, but rather that the exact colouring isn't considered critical to the heraldic science. What this means in practice is that while heraldry would not accept replacing colours (for example, blue to green, black to red, et cetera), heraldry does allow choosing colour shades. So it would be perfectly okay to choose a more bluish green, or a more yellowish green, or a lighter or darker green, et cetera. But, with that said, there may still be some preferences by heraldists regarding what constitutes good choices of colour shades. Most importantly, colour shades should not be chosen so freely that the colour becomes difficult to identify clearly. Others should not have to wonder if a particular shade is, for instance, meant to be black or green. Other than that, there are some other ideals when it comes to good choice of exact colour shades, like that heraldic colours should be bright, strong, clear, neutral, easily identifiable, and have good contrast. With all that in mind, I think that Fenn-O-maniC's original file had clearly superior colouration, from a heraldic point of view. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- to avoid deleting this very good svg i changed the colouring - in my opinion the colours were better before, but i am no expert in heraldry - i will now remove the delete request --Mrmw (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I tried to harmonise the colours of all the municipal arms just for the sake of overall clarity, the colours themselves are from the flag of Namibia, except argent for which I used light grey. I'd like to see other depictions of the "official arms" as the only versions seem to be here in the Wiki. The city's webpage doesn't seem to have any images of the arms either. The second link should be fixed now. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- But why would one divert from the official colouring? There is no need to do it. If colouring does not matter in heraldry [sic], I could use any colour. --Chtrede (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. Your second link does lead to a 404 error page. It is easy to get the exact coat of arms through the City admin (and this is what is shown in the file used for years in WP). --Chtrede (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
wind.jpg){kind=link}
The official blazon of the arms of Windhoek is:
ARMS: Argent, a Windhoek aloe (Aloe Rubrolutea) with a raceme of three flowers on an island, proper. CREST: A mural crown Or. MOTTO: SUUM CUIQUE
The blazon uses heraldic jargon, but "Argent" means silver, and "Or" means gold. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: the file is widely used, the rationale is not suficiant to delete it. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
No FoP in Russia for non-architectural artworks. Alexander Roumega (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
unused and uncategorised file. Commons is not private media repository. Only (remaining) uploading by this user. Estopedist1 (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Jean Besancenot died in 1992, copyright violation. Sorry Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Jean Besancenot died in 1992, copyright violation. Sorry Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
17 KB "own work" without EXIF. I find not only this one but also some other files by the same uploader as dubious own works. E4024 (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Accidental upload, better exact version exists Eiim (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
To expand on the above, I intended to upload the SVG version, which is available at File:Flag_of_Moselle.svg. I instead uploaded a PNG render from Inkscape of the same file. I believe this makes this file a Duplicate. I'll try to add that tag now, I'm new to this deletion process and I think I screwed it up. Eiim (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: deleted and redirected by Túrelio. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Low quality shot, either a large zoom in, or a photo from a screen grab or printed material (0.9 probability) and not a true piece of own work shot with a camera by the uploader. Needs both of a better statement about own work and a better quality picture. Likely copyvio Timtrent (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - unlikely to be own work. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This File was uploaded by Me. But there was no display of text while using it on Wikisource even after chaning version. Hence uploaded a new file and this file is no more required. Sushant savla (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Concordia University Nebraska logos uploaded by User Boyerling3
[edit]
May be above threshold of originality in the United States --Clarinetguy097 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: if we compare to the other exemple listed in Com:TOO, I think they are ok. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Crash71100 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: private
Converted to regular DR as image has a number of external uses[20]. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It's my own pic and depicts individuals. Milei.vencel (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Kept. Permissions are irrevocable and the file is in use in several projects. --E4024 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Era solo una prueba, quiero borrarla Das076 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, as DR was filed on day of upload. --Túrelio (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
duplicated Ojekooradio (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
[[File:Https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ghanana.jpg|thumb|greater Accra music award]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojekooradio (talk • contribs) 03:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: in use. And duplicate of what?. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't want to allow other people to use this photo, please delete it. Meike Fischer 94.216.98.33 17:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Meike, to which image-version are you refering, the first or the second one? --Túrelio (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ich frage mich, weshalb sie die Bilder hochlädt und nach neun Jahren plötzlich gelöscht haben will? Adelfrank (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Meikefischer as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Keine Bildrechte Adelfrank (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Die Files stammen sämtlich von User:Meikefischer [21] und sind seit 9 Jahren in Wikimedia Commons. Am 9.8.2020 um 17::10 nimmt User:Meikefischer2020 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Meikefischer2020 folgende Bearbeitung vor: [22]. Und das genau 2 Minuten nach der Bearbeitung von IP94.216.98.33 [23]. Hiermit beantrage ich die Benutzerkonten User:Meikefischer und User:Meikefischer2020 zu sperren. Wenn so etwas praktisch möglich ist, alle Konten die mit User:Meikefischer beginnen. Adelfrank (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Meike-fischer-fotografie-portrait.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=438068442){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion (copyright appears to belong to uploader). In use, and license is irrevocable. No need for block. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
car on y voit le visage d'une personne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migmoug (talk • contribs) 2020-08-04T11:52:48 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused image. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Illustration is too modern to be made in the 19th century, I have my doubts. Redman19 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Wrong license. Copyright violation in flickr account of this uploader. Regasterios (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Az 1914-ben ismeretlen szerző által készített fénykép PD-old. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This source is not sufficient to prove that the image is already in PD. Unknown copyright situation. Regasterios (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Az 1943-ban készült fénykép PD-old. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
This drawing made by Lipót Gedő (1887–1952), see here. Regasterios (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Nem Gedő Lipót műve, mi igazolja ezt ? A felirat rajta Sugár Tivadar. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Elekes Andor: A fentebb belinkelt forrás igazolja Gedő szerzőségét: a rajz megjelent az Élet és Tudomány 1958. évi 16. számában. Az általad említett felirat azt jelzi, ki van a rajzon, a bal alsó sarokban meg ott van Gedő szignója. Tessék, itt van nagyobb méretben: http://elsovh.hu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/sugar_rajz.jpg. --Regasterios (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Wrong license. Copyright violation in flickr account of this uploader. Unknown copyright situation. Regasterios (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Az 1930 körül készített fénykép PD-old. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Derivative work without original source. --Regasterios (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Незаконное использование 88.135.0.19 18:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC) И на самом файле, и в мета-данных указан автор данного снимка. Человек, загрузивший файл в вики - автором не является. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.135.0.19 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. Created 1993. No Permission from the sculptor Богдан Романець. Микола Василечко (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. Created 2002. No Permission from the sculptor Богдан Романець. Микола Василечко (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
![20:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/08/09#c-Микола_Василечко-2020-08-09T20:04:00.000Z-File:Петрові_Федуну_"Полтаві".jpg){kind=link}
Bogdan Romanets died in 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zastavki (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
![20:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/08/09#c-Zastavki-2020-08-09T20:09:00.000Z-File:Петрові_Федуну_"Полтаві".jpg){kind=link}
- Leaning towards Delete. @Zastavki: since he died in 2009, this artwork (a sculpture) will enter public domain in 2080 (70 years after the death of the sculptor plus one year to complete the remainder of the calendar in 2079). Unless you have obtained permission from his heir/s for taking photos of his work and for releasing such photos under free licensing not limited to either fair use or noncommercial. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
![15:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2020/08/09#c-Well-Informed_Optimist-2020-12-26T15:27:00.000Z-File:Петрові_Федуну_"Полтаві".jpg){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine and the photos violate sculptors' and architects' copyright. Created 2015. No Permission from the sculptor Володимир Оврах. Микола Василечко (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
93 KB small file by a one-time visitor; I doubt it would be their own work as they claim. E4024 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Wrong license. Copyright violation in flickr account of this uploader. Regasterios (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A fénykép egy filmkoca kivágás. Több mint 70 éves, nem téves a licence. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The real source is this documentary film (32:33), unknown copyright situation. --Regasterios (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A fénykép az I. világháború kitörésekor, azaz 1914-ben készült. PD-old. --Elekes Andor (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Szerintem összekeverted egy másik képpel, tekintve, hogy Demeter Béla 1910-ben született. --Regasterios (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Dehogy keverte össze. Ezen a képen jól láthatóan egy négy éves gyerek van. Legalábbis Elekes Andor szerint. 
Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
A fénykép 1946-ból származik, közzé lett téve. PD-old --Elekes Andor (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete Még ha igaz is, amit Elekes Andor állít az 1946-os származásról, az URAA miatt még nem használható a Commonsban, tehát törlendő. De én nem látom semmi bizonyítékát annak, hogy ez a kép 1946-ban lett publikálva. Forrás? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This source is not sufficient to prove that the image is already in PD. Unknown copyright situation. Regasterios (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete A kép megjelent 1998-ban, 2012-ben, 2018-ban. Egyik helyen sincs megjelölve szerző, de ami még fontosabb, hogy egyik helyen sincs megjelölve sem forrás, sem utalás arra, hogy mikor jelent meg először, azaz mikor lett publikálva és hol (illetve a 2018-as helyen ez szerepel: Fotó: pinterest.com). A feltöltő által megjelölt 1930 körül megjelölés hasraütés. A szerzői jog egyébként is azt írja elő ismeretlen szerző esetén, hogy az első publikálástól számított 70+1 év után lesz egy kép közkincs. Mivel itt most az első ismert közlés dátuma az 1998-as év, így 2069-ben esedékes a közkinccsé válása. Persze kivéve, ha addig előkerül 70 évnél régebbi forrásból a kép, vagy kiderül, ki a szerzője és megtudjuk róla, hogy 70 évnél régebben hunyt el. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Poorly lit shot which appears to be a mobile phone screenshot, but no camera data, which suggests copyright violation (0.95 probability). No useful attribution, and illustrates nothing in particular, just a man with a car. Regardless of copyright status out of scope for Commons Timtrent (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a forged photograph. See unedited version here: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/65231894583015933/ 24.38.221.243 17:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I've orphaned the file. Finnusertop (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
copyright violation. iOS is not provide under free license. eien20 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. There are other photos of iPhone 4 in Category:iPhone 4 and some of them show an operational iOS screen too. User:Eien20: If you believe this is a copyright violation, would you also help examine yue:File:IPad Pro.jpg and advise whether that photograph of an iPad is also an acceptable claim of open copyright? (Please ping or reply on user talk, as I don't visit Commons very often) Deryck Chan (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Deryck Chan: I confirmed that there are no problems with that category:iPhone4. I decision the
logosicons modified --eien20 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC) are copyrighted. --eien20 (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)- @Eien20: Does that mean File:IPad Pro.jpg is unaffected by this copyright issue? Deryck Chan (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- I won't talk about other file. May I know the reason just for my information, what those file contain copyrighted material? --eien20 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Eien20: File:IPad Pro.jpg contains the Apple logo, and clearly shows the (possibly copyrightable) design of the iPad Pro. If images containing iOS icons must be deleted because the icons are copyrighted, we want to find out whether the Apple logo and the shape of the iPad may also be copyrighted. Deryck Chan (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
- I won't talk about other file. May I know the reason just for my information, what those file contain copyrighted material? --eien20 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Eien20: Does that mean File:IPad Pro.jpg is unaffected by this copyright issue? Deryck Chan (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Deryck Chan: I confirmed that there are no problems with that category:iPhone4. I decision the
Deleted: per nomination. --ƏXPLICIT 02:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
bzd Kxexvxixn (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: non-sensical DR. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
我改变了主意，我不想再让公众看到它了 Kxexvxixn (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Seems to be the logo/wordmark of a random church in Malaysia; out of scope. -M.nelson (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy delete useless image. RZuo (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. --Ellywa (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
This file is a duplicate of this image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prince_Wied_in_Durres.jpg Kj1595 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep this file seems to be of higher resolution. Keep both around to offer a choice to our users. Multichill (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Kept: higher resolution, but redirected the other file as duplicate. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EugeneZelenko as no license (No license since). Well there is a confimred flickr license, but it looks like a 3rd party screenshot without permission. JuTa 21:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi JuTa, I am the uploader of the file, but not the author. I was "harvesting" the flickr account of the photographer, Kristian Bjornard, while working on some articles. And uploaded to Commons some of his CC-BY licensed photographs that I thought to be of interest. Indeed, this photo includes the splash screen of Scribus, which isn't the work of this photographer. Scribus, the software itself, is under GNU GLP license. You can find various other parts of it's interface in this Commons category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Scribus. I'm not sure how GLP-licensed software splash screens are to be handled. 1904.CC (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Screenshots, this file can remain on Commons: 1) The author of the screenshot, Kristian Bjornard, published it on Flickr under CC-BY-SA. 2) The software that is shown is Scribus, a freely licensed software. --1904.CC (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Kept: per User:1904.CC. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
detail d'une oeuvre de F-L-B Jourdain.jpeg Arquin93 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Détail_d'uneoeuvre_de_F-L-B_Jourdain_petit_format.jpg Arquin93 (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of recent upload. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The author died in 1983. Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nagy László fortepan 107214.jpg. Regasterios (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A Fortepan jellemzően nem tünteti fel az általa gyűjtott, adományként elfogadott fényképek szerzőjét. A Fortepan által a commons részére megadott "adományozó" feltüntetése nem jelenti a szerző megjelölését. Ez a fotó is csak az adományozó feltüntetésével található az interneten például itt: https://www.facebook.com/hustory.hu/photos/gy%C3%B6ngy%C3%B6si-bety%C3%A1rcs%C3%A1rdafortepan-adom%C3%A1nyoz%C3%B3hunyady-j%C3%B3zsef-k%C3%A9psz%C3%A1m-106501/2819771738092978/
Az átalam megadott forrás online cikk sem jelöli meg sem az adományozót, sem pedig a szerzőt. Önmagában az, hogy valaki egy fényképet adományoz a Fortepannak, még jelenti azt, hogy az adományozó lenne egyben a fénykép készítője. Ilyesmiről csak akkor beszélhetünk -esetleg - ha a Fortepan kiveszi a fénykép adományozójának nyilatkozatát arról, hogy ő készítette a fényképet és ez a nyilatkozat egyébként életszerűnek történik.
Szükséges lenne hogy a Fortepan igazolja, hogy a fénykép szerzője Hunyady József a szerző erre vonatkozó nyilatkozatával amit véleményem szerint archiválni kell. Mivel a Fortepan rendszerében ugyanúgy nem található a fénykép az ID keresésére, ahogy a google sem adja ki felotöltött képre történő keresésre ezt a fényképet mint Fortepan képet ez is aláhúzza a fentieket. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete A Fortepan szerzőségi kezelése nagyon nem megfelelő, a szerzői jogvédelemre kb. magasról tesznek. Az onnan származó képeket erős forráskritikával kell kezelni. Az Index cikkében nagyon szépen ki van fejtve, hogy Hunyady József képeit miképpen szerezték és “tették szabad licencűvé”. Egyértelmű, hogy az adományozóként megjelölt Hunyady itt a szerzőt jelenti, hiszen nem azok lettek megnevezve adományozóként akik a képeket megtalálták és eljuttatták a Fortepannak. Hunyady amúgy nem is lehetne adományozó a Fortepan felé hiszen 1983-ban elhunyt. Az ő fényképeinek esetében egyértelmű, hogy nem használhatóak szabad licenc alatt. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Info: "Mivel a Fortepan rendszerében ugyanúgy nem található a fénykép az ID keresésére" – Ebben az a "vicces", hogy de igen, megtalálható ha valaki a keresőben a 106501-es sorszámot keresi. Szintén bejön a kép, ha valaki a FOTO:Fortepan — ID 106501: sor mellett lévő ikonok közül a másodikra kattint és akkor is ha a harmadikra kattint. Úgyhogy az a csúsztatási próbálkozás, hogy a kép nem található meg a Fortepan rendszerében, nem igazán jött össze, azaz csak próbálkozás maradt. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
A magyar wikipédia centúrája általában elszomorít. Most azonban Hungarikusz Firkász új oldaláról mutatkozik be. Tippel a szerzőségre. Ez nem jó és olyan értelemben felháborító is, hogy más esetekben szörszálhasogató módon forgat ki minden állítást. Nem tippelni kell, hanem megjelölni azt, forráshivatkozás mellett, hogy ki a fénykép szerzője. DE ezt is csak azt követően hogy a fénykép szerzője e g y é r t e l m ű e n meg van jelölve. A Fortepan gyakorlata, mely szerint a "szerző" kérdés mellett adományozóról zagyvál: értehetetlen, szabálytalan, visszataszító. Kérem az állítást (a feltöltő részéről) és a forrást (ugyancsak a feltöltő részéről). --Elekes Andor (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Mondja ezt az, aki egy 1962-es (expliciten a forrásban megjelölve) képre azt hazudja, hogy az 1949-es. Továbbá mondja ezt az, aki annak ellenére, hogy a forrásban ott van a szerző neve (Keleti Éva) azt hazudja, hogy a szerző ismeretlen.
Ezekkel ellentétben én nem tippeltem, hanem elolvastam a forrást, amelyeket a Fortepanon lévő Hunyady József képeivel kapcsolatban maga a Fortepan illetékese fejtett ki. Ezt a forrást behivatkoztam. A fénykép -- Elekes Andor állításával szemben -- megtalálható a Fortepan oldalán.
Nyilvánvalóan Elekes Andor meg tudja magyarázni, hogy egy 1983-ban elhunyt személy miképpen tudott bárkinek is bármit adományozni a halála után több évtizeddel később. Főleg úgy, hogy a hivatkozott forrásban egyértelműen le van írva, hogy Hunyady József képeiről van szó, amit a megtalálók adtak a Fortepannak. Sajnos jól látható, hogy Elekes Andor nem foglalkozik a tényekkel, mert az megzavarná az érvelését.
Ez külön vicces: "Kérem az állítást (a feltöltő részéről) és a forrást (ugyancsak a feltöltő részéről)." - A feltöltő Elekes Andor. Elekes Andor önmagától kér állítást és forrást. :-) Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
A kép a Fortepanon erre linkre kattintva tekinthető meg: http://fortepan.hu/?image_id=106501. Még egyszer az Index 2016-os cikke arról, hogy azoknak a képeknek, amelyeknél a Fortepan adományozóként Hunyady Józsefet jelölte meg, ő valójában nem az adományozója volt (nem is lehetett ugye), hanem a készítője, és a cikkből az is kiderül, hogy 1983-ban halt meg. Miért kell ezen az egészen rugózni, miért nem lehet elfogadni azt, ami nyilvánvaló? --Regasterios (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Files in Category:Kelenföld train station
[edit]These legal graffities are in an underpass in Budapest, Hungary. Not to be covered by COM:FOP Hungary.
- File:Utazunk (1).jpg
- File:Utazunk (10).jpg
- File:Utazunk (11).jpg
- File:Utazunk (2).jpg
- File:Utazunk (3).jpg
- File:Utazunk (4).jpg
- File:Utazunk (5).jpg
- File:Utazunk (6).jpg
- File:Utazunk (7).jpg
- File:Utazunk (8).jpg
- File:Utazunk (9).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A Kelenföldi Pályaudvar aluljárója közforgalomnak átadott terület. Nem helyiség ezért vonatkozik rá a FOP is. Másrészt függetlenül a FOP-tól az ismeretlen szerző által készített graffitiket egyébként sem védi a szerzői jog. --Elekes Andor (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@Elekes Andor: tévedsz, amikor azt írod, hogy ismeretlen a szerző. Amint itt olvasható, Zelena Veronika, Balogh Attila és Lázár Vilmos készítették a dekorációkat: https://www.mavcsoport.hu/mav-csoport/megszepult-kelenfoldon-vasutallomas-aluljaroja. Mivel nem a szabadban láthatók a művek, nem vonatkozik rájuk a panorámaszabadság véleményem szerint. --Regasterios (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A közforgalomnak átadott terület rendeltetése megegyezik a szabadon használható és szabadban megvalósuló közterülettel. Ennek megfelelően ez az eset a közterületre vonatkozó szerzői jogi szabályozás (FOP) alá esik. Javasolom hogy kérjétek ki a wikipédiával megfelelő kapcsolatban álló és szerzői jogi kérdésekben járatos jogász véleményét. Ha nem tudná eldönteni a kérdést, akkor merjetek dolgozni. Folytassatok le egy próbapert, kérjetek állásfoglalást. --Elekes Andor (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: The operative word seems to be "outdoors", and while the subway is public it does not appear to be outdoors. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)